About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
closing loopholes. that is a reputation of what john boehner suggested in the days since the president has been re-elected. >> that's totally right. a key point, the simpson-bowles tax idea is kind of a magic pony, right. everyone agrees in the ab instruct, we can bring down the rates, close loopholes and deductions and raise revenue. if that's such a wonderful idea how come it's only come up now. how come no one has done it. the reason is because it's really, really hard politically. once you get into the specifics. if you're trying to tie all the revenue to this abstract tax reform idea you're going to get into a position where the revenue is about never going to happen because once you get into reality it doesn't materialize. >> you have to do both, john. you have to do -- you have to raise the the rates and close loopholes to get the amount -- >> just raise the rates. >> you can't raise the rates high enough to produce $1.6 trillion. >> you can get $900 billion from expiring the bush tax cuts. >> and where do you get the other $700 billion from from. >> do a little reform and cut the r
, that $1.6 trillion, is twice the amount of revenue that he and boehner put on the table last summer. it's a clear sign to the left that the president has stopped beginning his negotiations from the middle ground, something democrats have often complained about with this president. afl-cio president said he's confident that the president is not going to fold. >> the president led with that notion of protecting the middle class. are we going to collectively stand up and make sure that workers get a fair shake in all of this? absolutely we are. do we believe that the president is committed to that same thing? absolutely we do. will the president show today he's willing to go over the fiscal cliff if reboundians don't make the deal they are satisfied with. in a new pew poll, 50% will not reach an agreement in time. 53% are assuming republicans will be more to blame if no deal is struck. but yesterday minority leader mitch mcconnell, who met with the three gop freshmen, new senators, will join the repub c republican conference, struck a hard line when it came to tax rates. >> in politics th
house? is it john boehner? >> i think the president is the only with one that can sign the agreement. john boehner needs to have an agreement that the house of representatives will pass, and i think whatever the two of them agree on will pass the senate. but expect it will be john boehner working along with the president. i'm sure mitch mcconnell will be very closely involved in the discussions with leader boehner. >> you don't believe a deal should come out of the senate and then be introduced in the house? >> well, i think the elections are over. we need to find solutions to help our country move forward in a positive direction and as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs says the biggest threat to our national security is actually our debt. we need to get this spending under control and get people back to work. >> i want to talk about this issue of taxes and tax rates and get you to respond to something from not exactly someone who is known as a liberal thinker here. take a listen. >> it won't kill the country if we raise tax as little bit on millionaires. it really won't, i
other point that i want to make and that is that my understanding is tomorrow is representative boehner's birthday. for those who want to wish him a happy birthday, we're not going to embarrass him with a cake because we didn't know how many candles were needed -- >> yeah, right. >> but we do want to wish him a happy birthday. >> thank you. >> thank you, everybody. appreciate it. >> house and senate leaders spoke briefly to reporters. >> good morning, everyone. we had a very constructive meeting with the president to talk about america's fiscal problem. i outlined a framework that deals with reforming our tax code and reforming our spending. i believe that the framework that i have outlined in our meeting today is consistent with the president's call for a fair and balanced approach. to show our seriousness, we have put revenue on the table as long it's accompanied by significant spending cuts. while we're going to continue to have revenue on the table, it's going to be incumbent for my colleagues to show the american people that we're serious about cutting spending and solving our fisc
driving the decisions made here. i think citing i believe speaker boehner, it's fair to say that the president also believes we don't -- he's not looking to box himself in or box other people's ideas out. as we approach the conversation that will be in on friday. >> suggest to the meeting that just took place they might have to give up more than they would like? >> i think the president has made very clear that everyone, throughout this process, not just in this past week since the election, but for some time now, that the whole point of compromise is that nobody gets to achieve their maximalist position. that was the approach we took throughout negotiations in 2011 and it's the principle the president has based his own proposals on. if you look at, again, the programs that the president has already cut through legislation he signed into law, if you look at the savings he's willing to enact as part of his plan, it demonstrates a willingness to give so that you can meet your negotiating partner somewhere in the middle and reach a deal. >> you don't have any specific -- >> i d
boehner immediately saying he generally supportive of trying to close the loop holes. do you see that as raising taxes? >> what boehner said and in the republican position since republican we should reduce rates have economic growth many of which are put in by obama for the solyndra green-type energy programs. let's bring the rates down. boehner was clear he wanted increase revenues it is not a tax increase to put more americans at work. if our recovery was growing the rate reagans did more americans would be at work. in terms of raising revenue which boehner grew about. if you grew the economy at reagan levels instead of two percent and obama and french levels, just growing faster and do that for a decade, the federal government gets trillions in taxes. we could undo the damage by having higher growth. >> gretchen: that's the difference in ideology. raise it to 3#.9 percent x. replace the alternative minimum tax with the buffet and raise the state tax and long-term capitol gains from 15-20. where do you think that those four points will go in negotiations with the republicans? >
incomes now and ensuring security for the future. hthis is the end of vision that speaker boehner without for the country last week. i cannot think why the present would not embrace it. someone said we should go over the cliff. just go off of the cliff. hope for the best. i do not think that is what the american people had in mind when they went to the polls last week. but they had in mind is that we put the contest of the past two years behind us and work it out. the best way forward in the way that will lead to jobs and growth, a smaller deficits, and you were political fights is to keep everyone where they are. figure out a way to avoid the automatic defense cuts scheduled to hit at the end of the year without putting a penny last thing we promised and committed to the entitlement reforms that we all claim we want. a simpler tax code that lowers rates and cuts special interest loopholes would create jobs and result in more revenue without raising anyone's rates. we know this because we have seen it before. it actually works. i do not think washington should get any of that extra revenu
.6 trillion of new revenue. boehner had agreed to $800 billion. it's not hard to find $1.2 trillion as a kind of middle ground to that. then you want to have $4 trillion of total deficit reduction, so that leaves $2.8 trillion of spending reductions that have to happen. here's what people miss. we can avoid going over the cliff with the stroke of a pen. they can just extend all this stuff and kick the can down the road. the real question is are we going to have a big deal? are we going to agree on the major spending restraints that we need as well as the tax stuff in order to actually get the deficit under control? and i think the betting on that is less than 50%. i think we have a great shot at it. but it's going to be really, really hard. >> is that the view from wall street, too? they're not totally confident that this is going to happen? >> what you see in the stock market at the moment is that wall street is not totally confident. that's for sure. >> all right. steve, thanks so much. >> pleasure. >>> coming up, independent senator-elect of maine, angus king joins the conversation. he's a
of influence in terms of those races. before hand, speaker boehner had a hard time getting some of his more conservative members to buy in to certain concrete hiatt -- compromises. going forward, we will have to see if the tea party conservatives will seem to have the same support. the president now has the upper hand and when he talks to speaker boehner he will have to take that message back and he gets a little bit more behind him. >> week and a shop with a meeting between the leaders and the white house. what is the dynamic? >> it will be very interesting to see. hopefully we will hear from them exactly what their conversation was with the president. it is unlikely that we're going to see a detailed agreement on specific issues. are we going to hear about tax breaks or how entitlement reform is going to happen in the deal? on not sure. these figures are going to be out there. they're all going to be scrambling to set the tone in the way that they want to set it. of they will have discussions like the democratic leaders also say let these are the areas where we made clear to republican le
. john boehner still in the house for the time being at the treasury. the president is back in the white house and harry reid is in the senate with a few more seats. why should i believe this would end any more positively than the summer of 2011? >> because again i'm not going to try to talk to you in optimism but let's look at what's changed. you have republican leadership acknowledging for the first time in this debate in public that it's agreed to increase in revenues as part of an agreement that helps restore fiscal balance. that's a very important change. you can debate on what motivated that change, and of course it's true that approach has been a popular very substantial support among the american people. you have a much greater recognition that the economy would benefit on a carefully designed balanced agreement on fiscal reform and putting it off indefinitely is not good for the country. that's important, too. and i also think again if you listen carefully to what people are saying and what many politicians are saying with many elected representatives are saying there's a lot of
can pass the alternative. but it's your problem to get the votes. and boehner would be well put not to try to cut a deal with obama but instead to say paul ryan's going to bring a solution to the fix, we're going to gather votes for it. i guarantee you, you'll get the right to have a democratic substitute. and if you can get enough republicans to vote for it, terrific. but they do not have an obligation to concede that the only mandate in washington is the president's. >> you're talking about chains hiring people for 29 hours. i'm hearing that from small business owners across pensacola. >> yeah. >> my own district. on election night i got three different e-mails from small business owners going it's sad -- and i said this on the air a couple days ago. they said i'm going to have to put these people on for less than 30 hours and i'm going to lose my best people. i can choose to do that or fire six, seven people because my margins are so small i'm fighting to keep my business open. >> you track the number of layoffs and closures in the first week since the election, it's sobering
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)